Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[eastmen]

AMD won't make Bulldozers for MS at $5-10 over cost though, since they can sell them for much more.

can they ?

 

[corduroygt]

can they ?

Given that even the cheap quad core athlon x4's are being sold for more profit than that, yes they can.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I think all this is pretty much moot discussion now about the costs. MS's latest financial statement shows that they can afford to subsidize a new console in the future. Over the life of the 360 the E&D division is almost even right now and I don't think Zune is carrying that division.

 

[corduroygt]

I think all this is pretty much moot discussion now about the costs. MS's latest financial statement shows that they can afford to subsidize a new console in the future. Over the life of the 360 the E&D division is almost even right now and I don't think Zune is carrying that division.

Just because they can afford to subsidize a console does not mean they should overpay for their CPU's and choose the needlessly expensive x86 architecture. A console is not a PC and does not require x86 compatibility. PC's are not driving big budget games except for Blizzard. x86 is not relevant outside the PC and server market.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Just because they can afford to subsidize a console does not mean they should overpay for their CPU's and choose the needlessly expensive x86 architecture. A console is not a PC and does not require x86 compatibility. PC's are not driving big budget games except for Blizzard. x86 is not relevant outside the PC and server market.

You made some huge leap from paying almost nothing over cost to overpaying. I'm sure there's quite a bit of ground in between.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Just because they can afford to subsidize a console does not mean they should overpay for their CPU's and choose the needlessly expensive x86 architecture. A console is not a PC and does not require x86 compatibility. PC's are not driving big budget games except for Blizzard. x86 is not relevant outside the PC and server market.

x86 CPUs happen to be the most powerful ones, barring maybe the minicomputer and mainframe stuff from IBM. what's so wrong about it?
going x86 means using an existing design (such as bobcat, bulldozer or sandy bridge) while going PowerPC for instance means creating a new design.

 

[Gubbi]

x86 CPUs happen to be the most powerful ones, barring maybe the minicomputer and mainframe stuff from IBM. what's so wrong about it?
going x86 means using an existing design (such as bobcat, bulldozer or sandy bridge) while going PowerPC for instance means creating a new design.

They would lose the possibility to lower cost over time. Remember how they got screwed by Intel and Nvidia for the Celeron and NV2a back in the XBOX days? You bet Microsoft remembers.

Paying IBM for a Power 7 derivative and AMD or Nvidia for a powerful GPU means money up front, but it is much cheaper in the long run.

Cheers

 

[corduroygt]

You made some huge leap from paying almost nothing over cost to overpaying. I'm sure there's quite a bit of ground in between.

x86 is not cheap and it won't be cheap as long as there's strong demand for notebooks and desktops with far larger profit margins.

 

[AlphaWolf]

x86 is not cheap and it won't be cheap as long as there's strong demand for notebooks and desktops with far larger profit margins.

What is not cheap? More than $50? Because you can buy dual core x86 processors for less than $50 right now. Can you buy a 2600k for that price? no... That doesn't mean its the best option but pricing doesn't necessarily put x86 out of the running.

 

[Squilliam]

The use of X86 wouldn't be a personal computer application it would be an embedded computing application and therefore the royalties and contracts would be different. Arguing about the cost in personal computers in relation to consoles is effectively the same as arguing that the cost of server chips makes personal computers impractical to design and manufacture.

The additional sales of a few million more X86 CPUs for consoles wouldn't impinge at all on the sales of PC / Server chips. All it would represent would be additional revenue over and above the regular PC and server sales of chips. AMD would hardly say no to an extra half billion dollars of revenue because the price per chip is lower than they are used to. Anyone who argues otherwise is barking up the wrong tree. In the case of Microsoft they would especially be silly not to say yes to such an agreement because they sell chips into what is effectively a Microsoft software environment so the other tangible and intangible fringe benefits alongside the extra revenue would be compelling on their own.

X86 from AMD will always be a viable option for a console manufacturer and the new agreement with Intel makes them even more so. Given the fact that nvidia reportedly made around half a billion from Sony, how much could AMD make from say Microsoft if they have both the Xbox next CPU and GPU design wins under their belt over say another 50-60M consoles?

 

[eastmen]

Thats exactly my point Squilliam.

AMD is a good source for chips for MS. They have already invest greatly in their cpus and they also create top of the line gpus. It would be a potent combo if they could go with AMD.

Since AMD has already sunk the costs of their chips any contracts they can get is just money in the bank.

 

[corduroygt]

What is not cheap? More than $50? Because you can buy dual core x86 processors for less than $50 right now. Can you buy a 2600k for that price? no... That doesn't mean its the best option but pricing doesn't necessarily put x86 out of the running.

The cell was $37 in 2009 according to isuppli, doubt you could get a dual core x86 for that amount back then. The 360 CPU probably cost even less. x86 is not needed for BC in a console, in fact it would break BC.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The cell was $37 in 2009 according to isuppli, doubt you could get a dual core x86 for that amount back then. The 360 CPU probably cost even less. x86 is not needed for BC in a console, in fact it would break BC.

How much the cell was in 2006 would be a more interesting (and more useful) number. That's a more likely target of a new CPU than a current price.

 

[eastmen]

The cell was $37 in 2009 according to isuppli, doubt you could get a dual core x86 for that amount back then. The 360 CPU probably cost even less. x86 is not needed for BC in a console, in fact it would break BC.

How much would cell cost if i wanted to buy it to put in my computer ?


We don't know how prices compare because we don't know how much actual x86 chips cost.

However we know this

The phenom II x6 is 904M tranistors at 346mm 2 on 45nm .

a core i7 6 core is 1.17b tranistors at 240mm2 on 32nm

The cell cpu was 220mm2 at 90nm .

So an i7 6 core on 32nm with similar yields to the cell on 90nm would cost roughly the same.

The phenom II x 6 is smaller and on 32nm would be much smaller than the cell.

So what we know is that the x86 chips would cost similar prices to what cell cost back when planing for the ps3 .

Xenon was a bit smaller at 154mm2

Actually there is an advantage. instead of taking a chip that isn't used in anything like waternoose or cell , AMD would be producing millions of bulldozers or bobcats so you wouldn't have the learning curve and bad yields of starting the new chips on a process and have the troubles ms and sony had last gen like disabled sections of the chip.

 

[eastmen]

Btw

The phenom II x6 is 904M tranistors at 346mm 2 on 45nm .

searching the net i found that the 32nm six core Istanbul would bring the die down to the range of 130mm2 which is quite small.

 

[Squilliam]

I would say the majority of the costs with the next generation chips may indeed be the royalties to the I.P. holders. Therefore I believe the front running companies would have to be the companies which can offer technology on the most cost efficient terms and not entirely based upon the physical manufacturing parameters.

 

[corduroygt]

How much the cell was in 2006 would be a more interesting (and more useful) number. That's a more likely target of a new CPU than a current price.

Intel was charging $186 for a 65nm 1.86Ghz C2D. 90nm Cell was estimated to cost $89 at launch. Not to mention how poorly a 1.86Ghz C2D PC with a GTX7800 video card play games today.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Intel was charging $186 for a 65nm 1.86Ghz C2D. 90nm Cell was estimated to cost $89 at launch. Not to mention how poorly a 1.86Ghz C2D PC with a GTX7800 video card play games today.

Cost $89 to fabricate... plus how many billions in R&D?

 

[corduroygt]

Cost $89 to fabricate... plus how many billions in R&D?

It was a joint venture to be used on more than just a single console, plus $100 difference over millions of consoles adds up to billions as well.

There is good intrinsic value on owning your own IP than to be hostage to and keep paying for someone else's IP on a per-chip basis. That's why I'd say Sony and MS will leverage the IP they've already helped develop and paid the costs for, instead of paying Intel per chip royalties, as MS disastrously found out with the original Xbox. Further doubling/quadrupling up their existing CPU designs wouldn't cost a lot of money.

 

[MfA]

On the other hand, AMD and even moreso Intel (because they are less beholden to short term gain) is invested in the success PCs for consumer use. Consoles are in a way destructive to their livelihoods, that has to play a part in the pricing.